Find a Lawyer

MUNIR KHAN versus STATE

The testimony of both the prosecution witnesses was long and examined, but the defense of the value of the evidence of the Sections 9 (C) and 29 Drug Control (Government Analyst) Regulations, 2001, 4 and 5 Could not break the ground and establish the basis. The defendants were charged with false implications in the case, but apart from some minor contradictions and weaknesses, which were not fatal to the trial, both said witnesses made consistent statements that were not possible. So just pushed aside that he was a police officer, both of the prosecution witnesses had no previous hostility or illicit desire against the accused, so that they could be included in a false case, both said that the witnesses almost all The material facts and their statements confirmed each other, they were also completed. The Chemical Examiner's report could not have been used by police to dispose of such a large quantity of marijuana against an innocent person who had nothing in the file to state that the police had any means to exploit his false chances. Had a notorious or illicit desire, the minor contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not sensible. Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Material Act Act 1997 failed to justify beyond reasonable doubt and to prove the accused accused of separating Chaseman from the prohibited charge, even after 4/5 days of possession. Received, but said it was delayed. Expert feedback: Send suitable articles, narcotic material stances law firms from Wan Radha Ram lawyer